BLESS skyrocketed, pushing both the Bless project team and retail investors onto the fast track. However, the real story began after the price peaked. On-chain data shows that after this round of market activity, the addresses associated with the Bless project team did not "advance or retreat with the community," but instead initiated a massive sell-off that lasted for several days: recently, around 500 million BLESS were sold, which at the time's market price translates to approximately 5.09 million USD in cashing out.

The 500 million BLESS were not dumped all at once, but were cleared methodically along two paths. About 200 million were transferred to the centralized exchange Bitget for sale, while approximately 300 million were sold directly on decentralized markets on the BSC chain, creating visible selling pressure on-chain. For retail investors holding coins, they chose to continue holding, hoping the project would "tell a bigger story," while at the same time, the project team was massively offloading stock during this period, creating a disjointed path that sowed the seeds for subsequent emotional backlash.

On April 26, 2026, the Bless project team executed another significant operation: they cross-chained 100 million BLESS from Solana to BSC, and sold them on BSC. This single offloading amounted to approximately 660,000 USD at the then-current price, becoming the most eye-catching "transaction pillar" in the entire series of sell-offs, which rapidly spread questions about "how much more will the project team sell?" throughout the community.

The aforementioned cross-chain and selling paths were initially monitored and disclosed by on-chain analyst Ember (Twitter: @EmberCN), and later cited and amplified by several Chinese media outlets such as Jinse Finance and Panews. As the number of "the project team sold 500 million BLESS and cashed out approximately 5.09 million USD" was repeatedly referenced on social platforms, market discussions quickly focused on a sharp question: when the project team undertakes large sales after the price surge, does that mean they see retail investors as liquidity counterparts? Has their prior trust in the project and long-term expectations been completely hedged against by this round of selling?

In the context of the crypto market, such behavior is often labeled as "pump and dump." However, regarding the Bless incident itself, the currently available information is insufficient to simply categorize it as fraud or "cashing out and running away." Even more contentious is that during this sell-off period, the official Bless account continued to release updates mainly focused on the Bless ecosystem and MemoryBase AI memory layer products, rather than clearly disclosing their coin sales plans or systematically explaining the situation—this was even specially marked as "to be further verified" in relevant briefings. On one side are the cold hard numbers on the blockchain, and on the other is the ambiguous treatment of sell-off actions in the official narrative. This fundamental divergence between the project team and retail investors regarding "who is responsible for whom" has been fully exposed.

Transfer of 500 Million Chips: The Complete Path from Cross-Chain to Sell-Off

When the official chose silence, the only thing left to restore the path is the cold, hard "ledger" on-chain.

The story begins with Solana. The addresses associated with the Bless project team initially held a large amount of BLESS tokens on the Solana chain, which were subsequently transferred in batches to the cross-chain bridge, switched to the BSC side—Ember tracked a clear pattern: the Solana-side address would deposit BLESS into the bridge contract, and the corresponding address on the BSC side would receive an equal amount of BLESS in a short time, marking the starting point for subsequent sell-offs.

After that, the 500 million BLESS were split into two main lines and delivered to the market:

One path is the "exchange channel." According to Ember's on-chain analysis, of the approximately 500 million BLESS that were sold, about 200 million were transferred from the BSC side address back into the deposit address of the centralized exchange Bitget. This portion of chips disappeared on-chain within the Bitget account, appearing on the order book and completing sales through matched orders. For retail investors, they could only see the volume and retracement in the candlestick charts, while on-chain, the trajectory of these chips was neatly punctuated.

The other path is the "direct on-chain selling channel." Ember's statistics show that the remaining approximately 300 million BLESS did not go through a centralized exchange but were sold directly on the BSC chain in decentralized markets. Specifically, after reaching BSC via cross-chain, these addresses began exchanging assets on-chain with counterparts, creating persistent selling pressure on-chain: on one end was the freshly arrived BLESS, being massively dumped into the liquidity pool, while on the other end was the counter-asset that was continually exchanged. They did not appear in exchange news, yet they were undeniably pressing down on every on-chain buy order.

The transaction on April 26, 2026, marks the latest and most notable link in this chain. On that day, the Bless project team again cross-chained 100 million BLESS from Solana to BSC and sold them on the BSC side for approximately 660,000 USD at the then-current price. This 100 million was not a one-off "incident," but rather another entry in the periodic outloading track that Ember incorporated—preceded by about 500 million BLESS already sold, totaling around 5.09 million USD in value, it was like a new bead strung along this on-chain sell-off chain.

It should be emphasized that all key figures mentioned above—the cumulative sell-off scale of 500 million BLESS, 200 million flowing into Bitget, 300 million directly sold in the decentralized market on the BSC chain, and the 100 million cross-chain sell-off on April 26 valued at about 660,000 USD—are derived from Ember's continuous monitoring of relevant addresses and have been cited and amplified by multiple Chinese media outlets such as Jinse Finance and Panews. In contrast, information regarding finer granular time points, single transaction price impacts, and other data exist only in single sources, remaining unverified by multiple media, and are treated cautiously as "to be verified layers" in this incident's analysis.

As such, any judgment on the Bless funding path must bear in mind this premise: what we see is a panorama constructed by on-chain traceable addresses and multiple media reports, not the official accounts actively disclosed by the project team. In this informational structure, who is offloading and how they are offloading becomes a narrative written on-chain rather than an explanation laid out in announcements.

The Backstab After the Surge: Who Pays for the Sell-Off

The story of BLESS begins for many holders with a period described as a "surge myth." The price kept climbing, with media using terms like "surge," retail investors and short-term funds poured in, building a string of initially unfamiliar letters into a new star on the leaderboard. Many entered the market at this time—they saw the candlestick charts and the increase in price but didn’t see the selling channel gradually built on the other side.

Ember's on-chain tracking delineated this channel: after this upswing, the addresses related to the Bless project team were monitored continuously offloading BLESS, accumulating about 500 million, estimated at approximately 5.09 million USD at the then-market price. Of these, about 200 million were transferred to Bitget for sale, while approximately 300 million were directly dumped into the decentralized market on the BSC chain; by April 26, 2026, the project team again cross-chained 100 million BLESS from Solana to BSC and sold them, amounting to about 660,000 USD, just one entry in the entire sell-off rhythm.

For retail investors who had just entered at high levels, these figures were no longer abstract on-chain statistics but directly indicated "who is against whom." During the uptrend, they placed their buy orders layer upon layer on the order book, while during the sell-off phase, the counterparty standing across the table was likely the address holding a massive amount of tokens. The large sell orders appearing successively after the surge were naturally interpreted as a kind of "backstab": just as they were discussing the ecosystem, discussing products, they would suddenly throw their tokens into the market with real money.

From the perspective of volatility mechanisms, the project team's concentrated sell-off of 500 million BLESS was enough in itself to change the market rhythm. Whether on centralized exchanges like Bitget or in decentralized pools on the BSC, a large sell order would compress the depth of current buy orders, amplifying price fluctuations in a short period. For retail investors without risk control, seeing the on-chain addresses continuously offloading, even if the price only fluctuated sharply rather than dropped unilaterally, was enough to trigger panic: some began to rush for the exit, while others simply resigned to being "bag holders" in their communities, emotions collapsing before the price did.

The chain of emotions usually unfolds like this: media reports "surge" → retail investors enter chasing the price → on-chain analysis reveals the project team has been continuously offloading during this phase → the community starts piecing together various screenshots and data on Twitter and group chats → "Is this a pump and dump?" becomes the dominant discourse. Particularly when the cross-chain sale of 100 million on April 26 was highlighted, many viewed it as another signal of "continuous cashing out after the surge," with the trust originally placed in the project team beginning to fill up with doubt and conspiracy theories.

Within the broader market narrative, the project team’s massive sell-off after price increases has long been summarized into a classic model—"pump and dump." The path taken by Bless indeed bears many similarities to this model: a clear surge that attracted a large number of retail and speculative funds, followed by on-chain records of the project team’s continuous sales totaling millions of dollars. However, based on currently available information, the blockchain only presents the facts of "how much was sold and through which paths," without sufficient multi-source evidence to directly characterize it as fraud or "cashing out and running away."

This issue therefore becomes more complicated: for deeply trapped investors, what they feel is the tangible pressure of market value and account drawdown, while the question of "is it fraud" becomes secondary; from a calmer perspective, in the absence of official complete disclosures and more third-party verifications, simply labeling the Bless incident as "pump and dump" comes across as overly simplistic and crude. One thing is clear: this round of sell-offs has already torn apart the emotions of different roles—project teams, on-chain analysts, media, and retail investors each stand on their own timelines, vying for the right to explain the offloading of 500 million BLESS, while those ultimately paying for this sell-off remain those hands sitting at the terminals, clicking "market buy."

Bitget and BSC: How Liquidity Absorbs Project Team's Tokens

Once emotions were torn apart, the question returned to a cooler level: who exactly picked up the 500 million BLESS dumped by the project team, and in what scenarios?

On-chain data provides a relatively clear flow diagram: approximately 200 million BLESS were transferred to the centralized exchange Bitget and sold on the platform, while the remaining approximately 300 million were sold directly in the decentralized market on the BSC chain. To trace back further, the April 26 operation of cross-chaining 100 million BLESS from Solana to BSC and selling them was merely one piece of the pressure path in this chain, with chips valued at approximately 660,000 USD being funneled into the same BSC liquidity system.

For Bitget, these 200 million BLESS were an extreme "liquidity test." All tokens transferred to the exchange ultimately find counterparties in the order book—buy orders on the order book, inventory in market-making accounts, and users who choose to "market buy" at a certain time. The project team’s sell-off at Bitget essentially transferred the on-chain address risks to the matching system within the exchange and its user base.
● From a liquidity perspective, Bitget’s role is that of a "container": accommodating large sell orders, breaking them down into transactions, condensing into a few increased bearish candlesticks on the chart.
● From the angle of risk control perception, such concentrated selling events draw attention to the exchange: how it assesses the concentration of the project team’s token holdings, whether it notices the continued offloading from the project addresses, and how willing it is to play the role of a buyer in a pattern of large sell-offs after price increases.
However, the publicly available information does not include authoritative data regarding Bitget's internal due diligence processes or specific user losses, nor are there detailed disclosures verified by multiple sources. We cannot leap over the facts to assert "who lost how much"; all that can be discussed is how much sell pressure flowed into Bitget as a centralized entry point structurally.

In contrast, the approximately 300 million BLESS sold directly on the BSC chain faced no matching engine, only automatic market-making liquidity pools:
● The project team's sell orders injected into the pool tilted the original BLESS/counter-asset ratio, with each exchange of counter-assets exerting downward pressure on the price curve.
● Liquidity providers in such a structure became "imperceptible counterparties"—while earning transaction fees from trading, they also passively endured the price shifts caused by large unilateral sell-offs. The shallower the pool, the more direct the impact of each sell-off.
In the April 26 operation where 100 million were cross-chained and sold, approximately 660,000 USD worth of chips were injected into the BSC market; this selling pressure was not obscured by the order book but was completely presented in the form of on-chain transaction records, tracked by on-chain analysts, referenced by the media, and ultimately interpreted by the community as a new round of "on-chain dumping."

While both Bitget and BSC undertook the burden of the project's large sell-off, their roles and risk exposures differed vastly.
● In centralized exchanges, risks are encapsulated in a black box ledger: users see price fluctuations and trading volumes but often can only guess how the true token flow and internal risk control responses are playing out through secondary information and retrospective outcomes. The project team dumps tokens, and the sell pressure is "smoothed" on the charts; thus, it becomes difficult for the outside world to immediately dissect who was taking the risk at high levels.
● In public chains and decentralized markets, risk exposure is transparent: every transaction flowing from project team addresses and the impact on liquidity pools is recorded in blocks, allowing anyone to review which addresses dumped 300 million BLESS onto the market, and at what time, using which paths. Price downturns are directly tied to the addresses' behavior; when the story does not hold together, data will lay out the causal chain beforehand.

In a multi-chain environment, the Bless project team, through Solana→BSC→Bitget, dumped tokens into two entirely different liquidity scenarios: one is a matched market centralized by an exchange and more "friendly" to retail investors, the other is an automated market-making pool governed by code rules that are open to on-chain data.
The former hides the sell pressure within candlesticks, while the latter lays the sell pressure bare in blocks. Regarding the final destination of the 500 million BLESS, these are just two different drainage pipes, but regarding who pays for this sell-off and in what manner, these structural differences will continue to ferment in the subsequent price movements and community trust.

Continuous Product Updates While On-Chain Offloading Continues

If you focus solely on the Bless official account timeline, it's hard to connect it with a sell-off totaling 500 million BLESS. @theblessnetwork has been almost daily stacking new narratives: updates on the expansion of the Bless ecosystem, technical progress of the MemoryBase AI memory layer, various functional roadmaps and product announcements, packaging the project as a story of a race still under rapid construction.

However, on the same timeline, the on-chain story speaks a completely different language. Ember’s tracked addresses reveal that the project team is methodically reducing their holdings—by first transferring about 500 million BLESS into the market through two pathways: approximately 200 million to Bitget for sale, and about 300 million sold directly in the decentralized market on BSC. By April 26, 2026, this rhythm continues: the project team cross-chained 100 million BLESS from Solana to BSC and sold them for about 660,000 USD at the then-market price, serving as another node in this round of offloading chain.

On one side is the product roadmap, while on the other is the financial exit path; what media and on-chain analysts do is to overlay these two originally parallel timelines. In comparison, that sense of disconnection becomes clear: the official narrative focuses on "we are building," while the actual actions on-chain regarding funds are "we are selling." Research briefs have also pointed out that whether the project team has made any clear or detailed official response regarding such large sell-offs remains "to be verified" information; no widely quoted explanations have been seen publicly in reports, which quietly hands the answer to "what we are doing" to the block explorer.

This asymmetry between narrative and action pushes the project's credibility and transparency into the spotlight. The Bless official account heavily updates products like the MemoryBase AI memory layer during the same period but does not synchronously disclose clear coin selling plans or offloading rhythms, resulting in a temporal dislocation: on-chain there’s the trajectory of 500 million BLESS being systematically offloaded, while on social media, there's a continuously enhancing narrative of confidence in the product. Investors see not just simple price fluctuations but a narrative disconnection from a project that claims long-term construction while quietly cashing out—this disconnection ultimately translates into doubts about the project's motivations and a markdown of future commitments.

In this round of games, on-chain transparency and third-party analysis functioned like a magnifying glass. Ember monitored relevant addresses, rearranging fragmented data scattered across multiple transactions, such as "500 million BLESS sold cumulatively," "200 million flowed to Bitget, 300 million sold on BSC," and "1 million cross-chained on April 26 and sold for approximately 660,000 USD," into a narrative that ordinary users could understand. It was precisely these on-chain paths, cited by media like Jinse Finance and Panews, that turned Bless's sell-off behavior from something visible only to a few into a public event for the entire Chinese community to discuss.

However, on-chain transparency does not equate to motivation transparency. Taking the Bless incident as an example, we can precisely see each cross-chain and sale amount, but we cannot conclude based solely on this data that this must be "pump and dump" or some form of malicious pattern. The blockchain can only inform us of what happened; regarding "why this was done," "whether promises were kept," or "what internal decisions were made," additional evidence and cross-verification from multiple information sources are needed. In the absence of sufficient evidence, categorizing complex behaviors simply as fraud is merely replacing ignorance with another rough narrative, providing no real protection for anyone.

For retail investors, the Bless event serves more as a lesson on "who controls the temporal information gap." In the past, many people were accustomed to only looking at announcements, AMAs, and white papers, believing that the project team's narrative encompassed everything; today, an increasing number of investors are habitually opening blockchain explorers and following analysis accounts like Ember, comparing official statements with on-chain facts. Those who see the flow of the 500 million BLESS first are the ones who understand the bottom cards of this game more quickly. The information disparity is no longer just about "understanding technology," but rather "the willingness and extent to hedge against uncertainties in the project team's narrative."

Looking ahead, controversies like Bless’s sell-off will not be the last; they will only be replayed under different project names in the next market cycle. The distinction may lie in whether the project team begins to proactively include "how much, when to sell, and what to do with it" into the scope of public disclosures instead of solely releasing product roadmaps; whether exchanges will regard "concentration of project team sell pressure" as a risk event that needs to be prompted to users in advance in their token listing and ongoing risk control, rather than merely a liquidity behavior; whether media and on-chain analysts will establish more standardized disclosure criteria, clarifying the layering of data and judgments, avoiding amplifying unverified accusations during heightened emotions.

In the aftermath of the Bless incident, the core of the game among project teams, exchanges, and investors may very well shift from "to believe or not to believe" to "what evidence can persuade whom." If the project team continues to rely on information asymmetry to complete large sell-offs, they will only be tracked and amplified by on-chain scrutiny and public opinion even faster in the next market cycle; if exchanges remain silent regarding the project team's sell-offs, their roles in risk control will be re-examined in each successive event; meanwhile, investors need to become accustomed to traversing between the official narrative and on-chain facts, treating both "looking on-chain" and "looking at announcements" as basic operations. Bless is merely one sample; true change will depend on whether these three parties repeat the same old script when the next incident arises.

Join our community, let’s discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。